Category Archives: Annotated Games

Stephen MacDonald-Ross

I was saddened the other day to receive an email informing me that one of my regular Thames Valley League opponents, Stephen MacDonald-Ross, had died at the age of 70.

Stephen was the younger brother of the better-known (but, in recent years, much less active) Michael MacDonald-Ross. Like many chess players, he came across as very quiet, but was always a pleasant and friendly opponent. He was usually graded a few points below me, but my impression, judging from our games, was that he was much stronger than his grade. His openings were well prepared and he seemed to excel at positional and endgame play, but was hampered by a tendency to mishandle the clock and run short of time.

I was never able to beat him in five encounters, managing only three draws.

The first time we met was in a London weekend congress in 1974. I had White and the game was a fairly short draw. It was not until 1992 that we met again, in a London League match between Richmond and Wimbledon.

Our remaining four games were all in league matches and in each case Stephen was white. We met three times in the 1990s, the first occasion being a 1992 London League match between Richmond and Wimbledon.

1. d4 g6 2. c4 Bg7 3. Nc3 d6 4. e4 e5 5. Be3 Nc6 6. Nge2 exd4 7. Nxd4 Nge7 8. Be2 O-O 9. O-O f5 10. Qd2 Nxd4 11. Bxd4 Nc6 12. Bxg7 Kxg7 13. f4 fxe4 14. Nxe4 Bf5 15. Qc3+ Kg8 16. Bf3 Qe7 17. Ng5 Qf6 18. Qxf6 Rxf6 19. Rae1 h6 20. Ne4 Rff8 21. Nc3 Bd3 (I have to be careful here as my position is slightly loose. This is not good, giving White time to double rooks on the e-file. 21… a6, to prevent a possible Nb5, should have been preferred.) 22. Bd5+ Kg7 23. Rf3 Bf5 24. Rfe3 Nd4 (A blunder, probably in time trouble, losing at once.) 25. Re7+ Kf6 26. Rxc7 Rac8 27. Rxb7 a5 28. g4 Bd3 29. Ne4+ Bxe4 30. Rxe4 Nf3+ 31. Kf2 1-0

It’s not very often that I get outplayed positionally but that’s what happened in our next game, from a 1995 Thames Valley League match between Wimbledon A and Richmond Juniors A.

1. d4 f5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 e6 4. Nf3 d5 5. O-O c6 6. c4 Bd6 7. b3 Qe7 8. Bb2 O-O 9. Qc1 Bd7 10. Ba3 Be8 11. Bxd6 Qxd6 12. Nbd2 Nbd7 13. Qb2 Bh5 14. Rfe1 Ne4 15. Rad1 h6 16. Ne5 Nxe5 17. dxe5 Qc5 18. Nxe4 fxe4 19. Qd4 Qxd4 20. Rxd4 Rf5 (Black should be fine here despite the typical Stonewall bad bishop because of the potential weakness of the e5 pawn. The right way to go here is 20… g5, to prevent, rather than encourage, White’s reply. My move is not very intelligent, just provoking White into playing good moves. Now Stephen outplays me in impressive style.) 21. f4 exf3 22. exf3 Rff8 23. Bh3 Rae8 24. cxd5 cxd5 25. f4 Bf3 26. Ra4 a6 27. Rb4 Re7 28. Rb6 Rfe8 29. Kf2 Be4 30. Ke3 Kf7 31. Rc1 g5 32. fxg5 hxg5 33. Bg4 Rh8 34. h3 Bf5 35. Rf1 d4+ 36. Kd2 Ke8 37. Bxf5 exf5 38. Rxf5 Rxh3 39. Rxg5 Rh2+ 40. Kd3 Rxa2 41. e6 Kd8 42. Rc5 Rc7 43. Rd6+ Ke7 44. Rxc7+ Kxd6 45. e7 1-0

Looking at these two games now, it’s clear that I lost them both by making a threat (21… Bd3, 20… Rf5) which was met with a gain of tempo when I should have preferred a defensive move instead. Perhaps there’s a lesson to be learnt there.

We met again in another Wimbledon A v Richmond Juniors A match in 1998. Again it was a Dutch Stonewall, but this time I chose a different plan, delaying castling. After mutual inaccuracies in what was probably mutual time trouble I missed a winning tactic.

1. d4 e6 2. c4 f5 3. g3 Nf6 4. Bg2 d5 5. Nf3 c6 6. O-O Bd6 7. b3 Qe7 8. Bb2 b6 9. Qc1 Bb7 10. Ba3 Bxa3 11. Nxa3 Nbd7 12. Qb2 O-O 13. b4 Rab8 14. cxd5 exd5 15. Rfe1 a5 16. b5 c5 17. dxc5 bxc5 18. Nc2 a4 19. Qa3 Nb6 20. Ne3 g6 21. Nd4 Rfe8 22. Nc6 Bxc6 23. bxc6 Rbc8 24. Rac1 Rxc6 25. Nc4 Nxc4 26. Rxc4 Re6 27. Rc2 Qa7 28. e3 c4 29. Rd1 Re5 (Missing my chance as the time control at move 30 approaches: 29… Rxe3 is winning.) 30. Qd6 Qe7 31. Bxd5+ Nxd5 32. Rxd5 Qxd6 1/2-1/2 (White now stands better in this double rook ending. I don’t remember whether we agreed a draw here or whether the position went for adjudication. Unlike our previous game, neither of us wanted to play on.

Our last encounter was in 2013, in a match between Richmond B and Wimbledon B. Like our first game, it was a short draw.

Although never a demonstrative presence at matches, Stephen will be much missed in London chess circles, most of all by his friends and colleagues at Wimbledon Chess Club, to whom I extend my sympathy.

Richard James

Was the Third Time a Charm?

Martti Mujunen is an ICCF expert who lives in Finland. This correspondence chess game is my third consecutive draw with Martti and the second time that I have played the Sicilian Defense against him. The first time that I played the Sicilian Defense against Martti I played the Four Knights variation. This time I played the Taimanov variation.

I won another game in this section prior to this draw. That win put me in temporary first place in this section and this draw kept me there.

ICCF rules allow the use of chess engines as well as chess databases. White took me out of my database of chess games with his eighteenth move. After that, I was double checking my analysis with chess engines.

Like my previous draws with Martti, this correspondence chess game ended before this section officially started.

Mike Serovey

He Who Hesitates

“He who hesitates is lost”, according to the old proverb, dating from long before the days of gender-neutral language.

In chess this is often true, but more often, at least in my games, those who hesitate are drawn. At my level this happens over and over again. You have a good position. You know what you ‘should’ play, but you get nervous, you start thinking ‘what if it doesn’t work’, the clock’s ticking away and you have to make a decision. You chicken out and play something which looks vaguely safe instead. I’m sure there are many of us who would get better results if only we had the courage of our convictions.

Witness the following game, in which I had the black pieces against an opponent of similar strength to myself, who I knew from previous encounters was an uncompromising player who would guarantee me an interesting game. He insisted, as was his right, on the ‘slow’ option: we had to play 35 moves in 75 minutes, with time called after 2½ hours. The league rules stipulate that, if the game is unfinished, the player whose turn it is to move can adjourn and continue at the opposing team’s venue or propose an adjudication. The other player can then agree to an adjudication or insist on an adjournment, travelling to his or her opponent’s club. (You may well think it extraordinary that here in 2016 we’re still playing chess in this way with such Byzantine rules, but that’s the Thames Valley League for you.)

1. d4 Nf6
2. Nf3

This gives me a problem as I prefer to fianchetto my king’s bishop in systems when White refrains from c4. The problem is that I have rarely played the King’s Indian Defence with black, and, although I used to play the Grünfeld regularly, gave it up more than 40 years ago. I rather suspect theory has moved on since then.

2… g6

Hoping he won’t play 3. c4, but…

3. c4 Bg7
4. Nc3

So I have to decide: King’s Indian, Grünfeld or perhaps c5 with some sort of Benoni. Mentally tossing a coin, I choose the first option.

4… O-O
5. e4 d6
6. Be2 e5
7. O-O

He goes for the main line. I’m not up to date with current theory after Nc6 so I select a less common variation which, to the best of my knowledge, is playable, and hope he doesn’t know any more about it than I do.

7… exd4
8. Nxd4 Re8
9. f3 c6

Nc6 is also popular here. Now White’s usual choice is Kh1, to move off the open diagonal.

10. Nc2 Be6

A natural developing move but Na6 is more often played and scores better.

11. Be3 d5

Going for the thematic pawn break, but I suspect White stands better in the resulting position.

12. cxd5 cxd5
13. e5 Nfd7
14. f4 Nb6

This position has occurred several times in practice. Black could also play Nc6 here, as 15. Nxd5 is hit by Ndxe5 when Black stands better.

15. Nd4 Nc6
16. Ncb5

Still fine for White, although Black won both games reaching this position on my database.

16… Bf8
17. b3

The first hesitation, perhaps, although it’s natural to prevent the black knight landing on c4. The engines all prefer Nxe6 followed by Rc1. It looks rather unnatural to me to trade off a strong knight for a bad bishop, but I’m not going to argue with them.

17… Nxd4
18. Nxd4 Rc8
19. Qd2

Another hesitation. White plays a natural ‘improving’ move rather than going for the pawn break with f5, which would have given him a strong position.

19… Nd7
20. Kh1

And again. He might have preferred 20. Bd3, taking control of the e4 square and preparing to meet 20… Nc5 with 21. f5.

20… Nc5
21. Bf3 Qd7
22. h3

Yet, again White hesitates and has now lost his advantage. Here the engines want to play Nxe6 followed by either Rac1 or g4. White must play actively to prevent Black putting a knight on e4.

22… h5

Now it’s my turn to hesitate. I wanted to prevent g4 and was worried, without any good reason, about the e-pawn being weak after a trade on e4. Instead 22… Ne4 23. Bxe4 dxe4 is equal, with a possible perpetual after Bxh3 if White tries something active.

23. Rad1 b6

Again – Ne4 is about equal.

24. Bf2

Again – f5 is good for White.

24… Rc7

Again chickening out of Ne4. I’m sure we both knew the right moves to play but wimped out of playing them at every opportunity.

25. Rfe1 Rec8
26. Rc1

Natural, I suppose, but setting up various tactical possibilities for Black on the c-file. The engines now recommend 26… Ne4, when Black will have enough compensation if White snatches the pawn, or 26… Nd3, but instead I wimp out again and move my knight to an unfavourable square on the edge of the board.

26… Na6
27. Rxc7 Rxc7

Giving White a tactical opportunity. Instead Nxc7 is correct.

28. Rc1

Missing 28. Nxe6 (it’s easy to miss tactics starting with a seemingly antipositional move) when 28… fxe6 is not possible because of 29. Qd3, hitting both a6 and g6.

28… Bc5
29. Rd1

As we approach the time control White allows a tactic which I manage to spot.

29… Bxh3
30. Nb5

Not the best reply. One improvement is 30. Be2 (hitting the loose knight on a6) 30… Bg4 31. Bxa6 Bxd4 32. Qxd4 Bxd1 when Black has an active rook and a pawn against White’s two bishops. The engines claim equality. Needless to say I hadn’t seen any of this at all, but in a complex position with neither player having too much time left inaccuracies are inevitable.

30… Qxb5
31. gxh3 Bxf2
32. Qxf2 Nb4

32… Qd7, to prevent f5, with a slight advantage to Black.

33. Be2

33. f5 gives White enough counterplay for equality.

33… Qc5
34. Qg3

A mistake as we approach the time control…

34… Kh7

And the final hesitation, playing a ‘safe’ move rather than 34… Qc2 with Rc3 to follow and the black major pieces infiltrate.

35. f5

On the last move before the time control White finally manages to play the thematic pawn break which he might have played on move 19, or on various other occasions thereafter.

35… Qc3

The best reply. Time was called and, as it was my opponent’s move he had the choice of adjourning and playing on at my club or proposing an adjudication. By now the other games had finished and my team had secured enough points to win the match so there was nothing except honour at stake. He proposed an adjudication, and, having better things to do with my life than spend a couple of days analysing the position and another evening travelling to his club to play it out, accepted his proposal. (I’d probably have asked him to seal a move and played on if the match had depended on it.)

I consulted the engines when I returned home and decided that after what appeared to be best play for both sides: 36. Bf3 Nd3 37. e6 Ne5 38. fxg6+ fxg6 39. Rxd5 Rc5 40. Rxc5 Qxc5 I was going to win the e-pawn and reach an ending with an extra pawn, but, with the queens still on the board it was unlikely to be enough to convince the adjudicator to give me a win. So I emailed my opponent and proposed a draw, which was accepted. Of course if I’d asked him to seal he might not have found the correct move. With more courage and determination I might have won the game. But with more courage and determination, and by playing f5 at the appropriate moment, my opponent might also have won the game, so I guess a draw was the fair result.

Richard James

Kids and Chess, Part Six

This Was a Blunder-fully Short Chess Game!

This is my final win against Benson Walent, so this will be the last time that I pick on him. This seems to be my second shortest chess game against a beginner and my sloppiest one that I have examined so far! I blundered on move number five and Benson started to punish my error. Then, I continued to make more bad moves! However, Benson let me off the hook by making a few bad moves himself and a couple of outright blunders that were worse than mine! In a matter of just seven moves I went from losing to winning.

One thing that has plagued me, as well as inexperienced players, is failing to win a won game. In this chess game, it was my opponent who failed to win a won chess game.

Mike Serovey

Kids and Chess, Part Five

For this week’s article I decided to pick on Benson Walent again. In this OTB chess game Benson played fairly well but he still lost in under 30 moves. The time control for this event was Game in 40 minutes with a 5 second delay. When Benson resigned he was down to about three and a half minutes while I still had 25 minutes. I moved too quickly at certain points in this chess game and thus I missed a couple of chances to win more quickly than I did. Benson took too long to move and ended up in time trouble.

When playing against beginners I can get overly confident and thus a little sloppy. My play was a little sloppy in this chess game because I was playing the Botvinnik system and did not check to see if I had better moves. Also, I will often trade down into an endgame and outplay my opponents there.

In recent events I discovered that I no longer have the endurance to grind out endgames and that strategy does not work well for me when I have no time to rest between rounds. In future rapid events, I will be slowing down in the openings and looking to crush my opponents there and try to win before we get to an endgame.

Mike Serovey

Doubled Pawns (3)

The 1972 Fischer-Spassky match took place just after I finished my formal studies and started my first job. For players of my generation it was part of our chess education, and for many of those a few years younger it provided the inspiration for them to take up serious chess.

It was fascinating to read a recent (January 2015) interview with Boris Spassky, in which he said that he always had a good relationship with Bobby and that they kept in touch after the match.

I guess history is what happened before you were born, or at least before you became aware of a subject. For me, Lasker, Alekhine and Capablanca are history, although if the latter two had lived longer they might not have been. For my pupils today, the Fischer-Spassky match is ancient history, but those of us around at the time will remember well what happened.

In the first game Bobby took a risk, making what on the surface appeared to be a childish blunder losing a piece. Fischer then demanded the removal of all cameras. His demands were refused and he defaulted the second game. He booked a ticket on a flight back to the US but, after an intervention from Henry Kissinger, was persuaded to remain in Reykjavik and continue the match.

Spassky sportingly agreed to play the third game in a small backstage room out of the audience’s view. This is what happened. Bobby was commanding the black pieces.

1. d4 Nf6
2. c4 e6
3. Nf3 c5

Fischer proposes a Modern Benoni, having avoided the dangerous lines where White plays an early f4. This opening, first popularised by Tal who scored a string of brilliant victories with it in the 1950s, leads to complex strategical and tactical battles. It’s a pity it’s seen so rarely in top level events these days. Perhaps the elite players consider it not quite sound.

4. d5

And Spassky accepts the challenge.

4… exd5
5. cxd5 d6
6. Nc3 g6
7. Nd2

Of course we all tell our pupils not to move pieces twice in the opening but this is a standard idea for White in the Modern Benoni. The knight is heading for c4 where it will hit the potentially weak d6 pawn while supporting an eventual pawn break with e5. Meanwhile, the f-pawn is now free to move to f3 to support the centre, or perhaps to f4 to support e5.

7… Nbd7
8. e4 Bg7
9. Be2 O-O
10. O-O Re8

A standard position in this opening. White’s most popular choice here is a4, another standard move in this opening, clamping down on Black’s potential queenside pawn break with b5. The more immediately ambitious f4 is the second most popular choice, with Spassky’s move coming in third.

11. Qc2 Nh5

This is the move that startled me, along with the rest of the chess world, back in 1972. Fischer voluntarily allows his kingside pawns to be shattered: again something we all tell our pupils not to do. Of course this isn’t the only move, and in fact hasn’t been played very often since this encounter. The sober choice is a6, but Black’s most popular option here is the almost equally startling Ne5, giving White the very tempting option of kicking the knight with f4. After 11… Ne5 12. f4 (White usually prefers a more cautious approach) Neg4 13. Nf3 Black has tried a variety of tactical ideas: 13… c4, 13… Nxe4 14. Nxe4 Bf5 15. Bd3 c4 and 13… Nh5 14. h3 f5 15. hxg4 fxg4, all of which demonstrate the richness of this opening.

12. Bxh5 gxh5

Here, 13. a4 would transpose into another top GM game played about 10 weeks later, which saw White extinguishing Black’s kingside pressure and engineering a central breakthrough with 28. e5. Perhaps it’s this game which put everyone off the whole idea.

Gligoric-Kavalek Skopje Olympiad 1972
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 e6 4. Nc3 exd5 5. cxd5 d6 6. e4 g6 7. Nf3 Bg7 8. Be2
O-O 9. O-O Re8 10. Nd2 Nbd7 11. a4 Ne5 12. Qc2 Nh5 13. Bxh5 gxh5 14. Nd1 Qh4
15. Ne3 Ng4 16. Nxg4 hxg4 17. Nc4 Qf6 18. Bd2 Qg6 19. Bc3 Bxc3 20. bxc3 b6 21.
Rfe1 Ba6 22. Nd2 Re5 23. f4 gxf3 24. Nxf3 Rh5 25. Qf2 Qf6 26. Re3 Re8 27. Rae1
Qf4 28. e5 dxe5 29. Re4 Qf6 30. Qg3+ Kh8 31. Nxe5 Rg8 32. Rg4 Rxg4 33. Nxg4 Qg6
34. c4 Rf5 35. Nh6 Rf6 36. Re8+ Kg7 37. Rg8+ Kxh6 38. Qh4+ 1-0

13. Nc4 Ne5
14. Ne3 Qh4
15. Bd2

15. f3, to prevent Black’s next move was suggested as an improvement. Now Fischer gives Spassky no choice but to straighten out his pawn formation.

15… Ng4
16. Nxg4 hxg4

There’s a big difference between this and the Gligoric game: Gligo’s knight was on the more useful c4 square rather than c3.

17. Bf4 Qf6
18. g3

Creating some weaknesses. This was criticised at the time and Bg3 was suggested as an improvement.

18… Bd7
19. a4 b6
20. Rfe1 a6
21. Re2 b5
22. Rae1 Qg6
23. b3 Re7
24. Qd3 Rb8
25. axb5 axb5
26. b4 c4
27. Qd2 Rbe8

Boris’s sickly e-pawn will not live very long.

28. Re3 h5
29. R3e2 Kh7
30. Re3 Kg8
31. R3e2 Bxc3
32. Qxc3 Rxe4
33. Rxe4 Rxe4
34. Rxe4 Qxe4

Bobby is a pawn ahead with a winning position: as usual the presence of bishops of opposite colours favours the attacker. Fischer is remorseless.

35. Bh6 Qg6
36. Bc1 Qb1
37. Kf1 Bf5
38. Ke2 Qe4+
39. Qe3 Qc2+
40. Qd2 Qb3
41. Qd4 Bd3+
0-1

In this game Fischer was happy to allow doubled pawns in front of his king in order to gain the two bishops and some piece activity. Perhaps it wasn’t the best idea in the position, but from my 1972 perspective it was extraordinary that it was playable at all, and good enough to bamboozle Boris.

Richard James

Kids and Chess, Part Four

In my previous articles about kids and chess I posted my losses to kids that were pretty strong. In this article I have posted one of my three wins against a little boy who was a beginner at the time that I played him. Benson Walent was a student of “Coach Mike” at the time that I played him. “Coach Mike” taught his students to play the Kings Indian Defense against anything other than 1.e4 by White. I played the English Opening and Benson went into the Kings Indian Defense as he was taught to.

One advantage of playing system openings is that you do not have to memorize as much. The drawback is that you become predictable. The Kings Indian Defense against the English Opening has never given me any real problems and in this chess game Black started having problems on move number 10. By move number 12 Black was losing.
Benson Walent between adults playing chess

In the photograph above, Benson Walent is the little boy who is between the adults on the right. At the time that this chess game was played, my rating was twice his, I was about three times his physical size and four times his age. I also had White. This gave me a huge psychological advantage! Behind Benson are two masters who are playing against each other on Board One.

The Tampa Bay area has many traditions that I never really understood. One of them is Guavaween. This chess tournament was played on or around the day of Guavaween and thus it was named after that event. You can find some information on the supposed origins of Guavaween at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guavaween

Mike Serovey

Recognising the Pattern # 25

Today we are going to see another common attacking formation with your knight on e5 (or e4 as Black) and bishop on b5 (b4 as Black). It is usually more effective when the bishop’s counterpart is not able to defend the d7 (d2) or c6 (c3) square. Again you must consider surrounding pawn structure before launching the attack as pawns are the natural blockader of lines. Here is the trap in the Chigorin defence that involves this attacking formation:

Martial Larochelle (2230) against Olivier Tessier (2215) in 2007

1. Nf3 Nc6
2. d4 d5
3. c4 Bg4
4. Nc3 Nf6
5. cxd5 Nxd5
6. e4 Nb6
7. d5 Ne5

Black thought that the knight on e5 can’t be touched because of pin on f3. In fact this is blunder that loses at least a piece.

8. Nxe5!!

With the idea of exploiting the weakness on d7/c6 with the coordination of the bishop on b5, knight on e5 and pawn on d5.

8… Bxd1

9. Bb5+ c6

If 9…Nd7 then Bxd7 wins material and 9… Qd7 loses the queen.

10. dxc6

Threatening to win queen with c6-c7 discovered check.

10..Bg4

Hoping for 11. c7 Qd7 12.Bxd7?

Other options are also not viable, for example:

A) 10…Qc7 11. cxb7 Kd8 (if 11…Nd7 then bxa8=Q wins) 12. Nxf7#

B) 10…Qb8 11. c7+ Nd7 12 Bxd7#

c) 10…bxc6 11. Bxc6 Nd7 12. Bxd7 Qxd7 13. Nxd7 wins the material (Berliner against Rott in 1956)

11. c7+ Qd7

12. Nxg4!

White is not in a hurry to recapture the queen. Black resigned here.

Ashvin Chauhan

Doubled Pawns (2)

One way in which doubled pawns can be weak is when they cripple a pawn majority in the ending. The typical pawn formation where Black has doubled pawns on the c-file following a trade of bishop for knight in the Ruy Lopez will be familiar to most of my readers.

White’s dream when playing the Spanish Exchange is to reach a winning pawn ending, so Black needs to be aware of the danger and keep pieces on the board.

Here’s one I made (very much) earlier. It’s a London League game from December 1972. I was playing the Exchange Variation of the Ruy Lopez, as we called it in those days, under the influence of Bobby Fischer. Regular readers of this column will know that it’s still popular at club level today. We’ll hurry through the first 36 moves.

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 dxc6 5. O-O Bd6 6. d4 Bg4 (6… exd4 is better. Now Black has to give up bishop for knight so White has all the advantages of the Spanish Exchange with none of the disadvantages.) 7. dxe5 Bxf3 8. Qxf3 Bxe5 9. Rd1 Qe7 10. Qd3 Rd8 11. Qxd8+ Qxd8 12. Rxd8+ Kxd8 13. c3 Ne7 14. f4 Bd6 15. Be3 f6 16. Nd2 Ng6 17. g3 Re8 18. Kg2 Re7 19. Kf3 Rd7 20. Rd1 Be7 21. Ke2 Kc8 22. Nb3 Rxd1 23. Kxd1 b6 24. Nd4 Kd7 25. Nf5 Bf8 26. Ke2 c5 27. c4 Ke6 28. g4 Ne7 29. Nxe7 Bxe7 30. Kf3 Bd6 31. h4 b5 32. b3 h6 33. a4 c6 34. f5+ Kd7 35. Bf4 Be5 36. Bxe5 fxe5

Black has obligingly let me exchange off all the pieces and reach a winning pawn ending. Maybe there were some players back in 1973 who didn’t understand this sort of thing.

37. h5

This is the correct plan. 37. g5 h5 is only a draw as the white king has no way through. So I have to play h5 first and then prepare g5, recapturing with the king. I just have to make sure that I time my waiting move on the other side of the board correctly.

37… Ke7 38. Kg3 Kf7

Now I have to be careful. The right way to play it is 39. Kh4! Kf6 40. a5 b4 (or 40… bxc4 41. bxc4 Kf7 42. g5 Ke7 43. f6+ gxf6 44. gxh6) 41. g5+ hxg5+ 42. Kg4 and wins as Black has to give way. On the other hand the immediate 39. g5?? fxg5 40. Kg4 Kf6 41. a5 b4 is no good as White can make no progress.

39. a5??

This also doesn’t – or shouldn’t – work. The waiting move can – and should – wait. Now Black will have the choice of either pushing or capturing on the queen-side depending on the choices White makes on the king-side. (If you play Capture the Flag pawn games, which you, and your pupils, should, you’ll get a lot of practice in positions where your choice between pushing and taking will depend on the number of tempo moves available.)

39… Kf6??

Black returns the compliment. The path to the draw is 39… Ke7! 40. Kh4 (or 40. g5 hxg5 41. Kg4 Kf6 42. Kf3 bxc4! (here taking draws but pushing loses) 40… Kf6 41. g5+ hxg5+ 42. Kg4 b4! (here pushing draws but taking loses). Once the tempo moves on the other side have been exhausted Black has to be able to play Kf6 in reply to White’s Kg4.

40. Kh4 Ke7
41. g5 Kf7
42. Kg4 Ke7
43. f6+!

The winning move. Of course I’m planning to meet 43… gxf6 with 44. gxh6 when my (doubled) outside passed pawns give me an easy win.

43… Kf7
44. gxh6 gxh6
45. Kf5 b4
46. Kxe5 and Black resigned

(Capture the Flag games are games without kings where you can win in three ways: by getting a pawn to the end safely (capturing the metaphorical flag), taking all your opponent’s pieces or stalemating your opponent. They are excellent for young beginners and can also be played at the end of a school chess club or lesson where there isn’t enough time for a complete game. The full Capture the Flag pawn game starts with both players having 8 pawns on their normal starting squares and no other pieces.)

Richard James

Doubled Pawns (1)

I’ve thought for a long time that there’s been more well-intentioned but misleading advice written about doubled pawns than about anything else in low and intermediate level chess books.

This first occurred to me in about 1970 when I first read Botvinnik’s One Hundred Selected Games and played through a couple of games that startled me because of the decisions Botvinnik made about his pawn formation. One of them concerned doubled pawns. Botvinnik enjoyed complex strategical chess and there are a number of games in the book where, playing black, he successfully fought against doubled white c-pawns in the French Winawer. In the game that particularly surprised me he was on the other side of the board, the owner of doubled c-pawns.

This game saw Botvinnik playing White against Vitaly Chekhover, best remembered now as a composer of endgame studies, but also a strong player who was awarded the IM title in 1950.

The game started with a rather unusual variation of the Nimzo-Indian Defence. Botvinnik played Queen’s Gambit type moves with White but Chekhover moved his d-pawn one square rather than two.

1. d4 Nf6
2. c4 e6
3. Nc3 Bb4
4. Nf3 O-O
5. Bg5 d6

Perhaps rather over-committal for contemporary tastes. c5 and h6 are the current master choices here.

6. e3 Qe7

6… Nbd7 is usually played here, but although both players have played perfectly reasonable moves the whole variation has never been fashionable.

7. Be2 e5
8. Qc2 Re8
9. O-O Bxc3

Botvinnik has to make his first doubled pawn decision. After 10. Qxc3 Black has the option of Ne4, when the queens will come off and White will still have doubled pawns (11. Bxe7 Nxc3 12. bxc3 Rxe7). The engines don’t seem worried, though, as they’re intending to play c5 sometime soon.

10. bxc3 h6
11. Bh4 c5
12. Rae1 Bg4

Botvinnik comments here that White wants to play around the d5 square, so he has to trade on f6.

13. Bxf6 Qxf6
14. Qe4 Bxf3

An interesting moment. Botvinnik thinks White now stands better because of his play on the central white squares, preferring 14… Bf5 15. Qxb7 Nd7 ‘and White’s pieces lose their cohesion’. The materialistic engines think Black doesn’t have enough compensation.

15. Bxf3 Nc6
16. dxc5 dxc5
17. Rd1 Rad8
18. Rd5 b6

The engines agree with Botvinnik that Black should have preferred 18… Qe7 19. Rfd1 g6 (the notation in my edition of the book gives the ambiguous ‘P-N3’ but this is clearly meant) 20. g4 when White maintains his centralised queen. Unlike Botvinnik, they think the resulting position is more or less equal, being unable to find a way for White to make significant progress.

19. Rfd1 Na5
20. h3

This passes without comment in the book, but the engines consider it too slow, preferring immediate infiltration with Rd7 when White stands better.

20… Rxd5

This was the position that interested me some 45 years ago, when I was still a pretty inexperienced player. I’d learnt that doubled pawns were bad and that passed pawns were good, so how could Botvinnik possibly consider taking with anything other than the pawn here? His only comment was that ‘Naturally, after 21. cxd5 Qd6! Black’s position would certainly be no worse’. Natural to him, maybe, but back in 1970 not so natural to me.

It’s not so natural to the engines, either, which all want to take with the pawn, just as I would have done. I rather suspect that this is just the sort of position that engines will struggle to assess correctly. As we’ll see next move, Botvinnik overlooked a defensive possibility for Black in the game, which also makes things less clear. I’d be interested to know how Magnus Carlsen, for instance, would assess and play this position.

21. Rxd5 Qe7

This may well be the losing move. The correct defence for Black, missed by Botvinnik in his analysis, was 21… g6 22. Rd7 Kh7 23. Rxa7 Rd8 when Black’s control of the d-file gives him equality.

22. Bg4 Qb7

Now it’s too late for g6: 22… g6 23. Rd7 Qf6 24. Rxa7 Rd8 25. Rd7. So White gets to establish is bishop on the vital f5 square, when he’ll force the exchange of queens and reach a highly favourable ending.

23. Bf5 Qb8

Certainly not 23… g6 24. Bxg6 fxg6 25. Qxh6+ Kf8 26. Rd6 when White will win either the queen or the king. The rest of the game was not a problem for someone with Botvinnik’s technique.

24. Rd7 Rd8
25. Qxe5 Nxc4
26. Qxb8 Rxb8
27. Be4 Na3
28. Bd5 Rf8
29. e4 a5
30. c4 b5
31. cxb5 Nxb5
32. e5 a4
33. f4 Nd4
34. Kf2 g5
35. g3 gxf4
36. gxf4 Ne6
37. Ke3 c4
38. f5 Nc5
39. Rc7 Nd3
40. e6 fxe6

White sealed 41. fxe6 and Black resigned.

Richard James